Categories

Sponsors

Chuck Norris on God and Guns…Mostly Guns

God and guns were so important to our founders that they established our protection to exercise them in the first two amendments to our Constitution-–the uninhibited and unrestricted freedom to choose our own religion and bear our own firearms.

But, more and more, these pillars of American life and liberty are being attacked and abandoned, not only out of sheer bias but ignorance of our founders, the Revolutionary period and our Constitution. Instead, these pivotal American rights have become the brunt end of cultural jokes and are often regarded as biased lifestyle components of “rednecks” and rural citizens.

The indifference, lack of education about and passion for all of our Bill of Rights gravely concerns me. And while there is nothing funny about it, it is one of many reasons why roughly one-fifth of the 101 short stories are “freedom” entries in my new book, “The Official Chuck Norris Fact Book,” a fun yet inspirational and educational book in which I share my 101 favorite Chuck Norris facts–-embedded within five core values: freedom, family, faith, fitness and fight.

Here’s “Freedom” entry No. 49 on the Second Amendment:

Official Chuck Norris Fact No. 49: “Chuck Norris sleeps with a pillow under his gun.”

There has been some movement in our country to get away from our Second Amendment rights. Last year, the Supreme Court even wrangled over the question, should the government allow private citizens or only public servants (“state militias”) “to keep and bear arms”?

Is someone joking? Could the 27 words of the Second Amendment be any clearer? “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

16 comments on “Chuck Norris on God and Guns…Mostly Guns”

I think he is dead right as far as the federal government goes. There is little question but that the Bill of Rights was written to restrict the federal government and protect the states and the people (these were not considered to be the same thing) from it. To my mind, it is quite unquestionable that the Second Amendment protects the people from any federal restrictions on firearms ownership at all.

The question then becomes whether or not you think the states have the right to make any such restrictions. To be consistent, if one says that the incorporation doctrine makes the rest of the amendments binding on the states, then the second amendment would therefore also be binding on the states, and private, individual ownership of firearms in this country is protected at all levels.

Good to see you writing again. I was worried you’d abandoned your writing.

While guns were a necessary and nigh-sacred to the Americans of the 1800s, I’d like to think that times have changed, and that the necessity for the average citizen to own a firearm greatly reduced. From what I’ve seen, countries with gun bans have far lower crime and homicide rates than we do, although it becomes a bit of a chicken/egg issue with crime and guns.

Still, I have yet to see any logical necessity to owning assault rifles, uzis, or other military-grade weaponry. Guns in general, sure, but I don’t see how one could justify the need to protect your home with an AK-47.

The Second Amendment is not concerned with the defense of individual homes, it is concerned with the security of the state.

I think there have been some people that might disagree with you.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…
— Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
— George Washington

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
— From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.
— Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment

The great object is, that every man be armed. […] Every one who is able may have a gun.
— Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

But no doubt those men are wrong, and you are right; you have wisdom, and they did not. The second amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is no point to the people having firearms for any reason other than to prop up the state. One would surely have to be an idiot to suppose such things.

This is where we separate the men from the boys, isn’t it? The men believe that constitutional promises should be kept, whereas the boys just like to shoot at stuff.

Your handy little quotes do not constitute the Bill of Rights, its own text and meaning does, and its text says nothing about individual homes. Obviously, there is no such thing as a secure home within a besieged state. And obviously the state exists as a pact, rather than as a dictatorship by its current, temporary administrators.

The only idiots here are those who rush to judgment, and those who employ sarcasm while failing to amuse me in the process. They are on notice, thank you.

Are these the same founding fathers that couldn’t agree on what a “man” was, and kicked it down the road to the 1860s?

“Founding Fathers” is the argument I get most tired of. They simply didn’t get along — they weren’t some monolithic bloc of opinion. (Quick — can you name which founding father murdered another one in a duel over an opinion?) They were real people, with real flaws. Which is why they wanted us to think for ourselves.

Sometimes the proponents of freedom are its worst enemies by way of the logic they employ. I really like Chuck Norris, but by trying to argue that the Bill of Rights grants rights, well-intentioned people like Chuck Norris make a serious error and place us all in great jeopardy in regard to our relationship to the government. Neither the government, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights is the *source* of genuine human rights and freedoms.

The Constitution defines and limits the actions of the Federal Government (Thomas Jefferson referred to the Constitution as “chains” that restricted and tied down the government so that it wouldn’t violate the people). In doing so it specifically lists some rights of states and individuals, and how the Federal Government must respect those rights. It goes on to say that any rights NOT listed are reserved to the states and the people.

The government is not the source of our rights. It was established to protect the rights that we have by nature. When we get into the business of believing that government gives us rights we start down a slippery slope, for anything the government gives, the government can take away.

Some of the early debates about the Constitution specifically concerned whether to include a Bill of Rights. Some were concerned that the very issue we have today would come about; people would (wrongly) interpret it to be list of rights that were granted by the government, that it could change, reinterpret or suspend rights at will.

Thomas: Let me guess — you have never been attacked by someone much larger, more powerful and aggressive, who is bent on harming, raping or killing you.

And all you have to do is look at readily available statistics. In almost every study and country, increases in gun control laws and gun bans have simply disarmed the general population, usually resulting in more violent crime against the least able of society. In many cases it preceded mass-killings by the government. Even here in America, the areas with the highest levels of violent crime, including murder… even with guns… are areas with the strictest gun laws and bans.

And why should your opinion matter in regard to what KIND of gun I choose to use to protect myself, my family or my home? Why should it matter TO YOU whether I own an AK47, an FN-FAL, or a 22 single shot rifle? It shouldn’t. If you don’t want to use an AK47 — one of the most reliable rifles in history — to protect yourself and your family, that is your freedom, just as it is someone else’s freedom to choose differently.

As has been demonstrated in many places, arguing WHAT kind of gun someone can use, how he must store it, etc., is effectively little different from arguing whether he can own or use a gun at all (for self defense).

I live in a small community of about 30,000. There are dozens of assaults, rapes and attempted murders here. If you look at the criminals who actually wind up behind bars, they average 180 – 240 pounds. In many cases they also use a weapon like a knife or gun to complete their crimes, or have accomplices. Their victims are usually under 140 pounds. Even in the best of circumstances, a highly skilled fighter would be lucky to prevail against someone 40+ pounds heavier/stronger. However, with a gun, the victim can “dissuade” all but the most psychotic, often without even pulling the trigger.

The only chance that *most* chosen victims have against a large, strong and possible-armed male is to be armed, themselves. It is the height of cruelty to attempt to disarm these people and thereby make them incapable of protecting themselves.

Chris: It takes little more than a half hour of research to discover that it was taken for granted by early Americans that individuals would have guns, and that they were free to use guns (or any weapons) in defense of themselves and their homes, in addition to defense of their communities.

Whether the Bill of Rights specifies that I can use a gun to defend myself or my home is irrelevant. By arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, or something intended for states, you merely perpetuate a red herring.

The issue is this: Self defense is a fundamental human right. It is not and cannot be granted or taken away by government (except by brute force or voluntary cooperation). If you are ever assaulted, it is most likely going to be by someone who is larger, more powerful and more aggressive that you. He may have a weapon or accomplices. He chose the time and place, and he chose you as a victim because he believes he can defeat you.

He is probably right.

Knowing martial arts will never prevent an assault. It might increase your chances of prevailing once it has commenced. But if you have a weapon like a gun, you have a very good chance of preventing the assault in the first place (intimidation), let alone prevailing (pulling the trigger). And this is true irrespective of your size.

For these and other reasons, the gun is, without any argument, the single most effective tool of self defense in the world. To prevent people from owning guns, under whatever guise, is no different in effect than telling them that they may not have the tools necessary to prevent or defend themselves or their families from assault. Disallowing general gun ownership is, in effect, a violation of a fundamental human right to protect one’s own life.

The fact that many people also use it to commit crimes and atrocities is a tragedy. But forcibly disarming innocent people won’t stop the crimes or the atrocities — it will only create more victims.

Guns are tools, and like all tools, each gun has it’s own purpose. Where a small or concealable weapon like a sidearm could be argued for self-defense, military-grade weapons like AK-47s, M16s, etc. are a little more difficult to be used for such a purpose. Legalizing weapons like these can be great for people who want use them for self-defense, but it also makes things much easier for people who want to use them for committing crime as well. The question I have is how much more useful is an assault rifle for self-defense as opposed to a sidearm? Why not go straight to RPG-launchers or flamethrowers? By your argument, it shouldn’t matter if I wanted to use a mortar for self-defense, it is my right to do so.

Doubt me? Google how many guns are currently in Iraq. Everyone had one. Literally, each family was guaranteed the right to a gun. And yet no common citizen any real rights.

Your safety depends upon civil society. Civil society depends upon trustworthy citizens involved in every form and level of government, both official and unofficial. Otherwise, someone is always bigger and meaner.

Now do you understand why character education is so important to real Martial Arts guys?

Also, since no one seems to know the answer to my question: Vice President Arron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

What was it over? Well it had been brewing since the Revolutionary War, but, essentially, Hamilton used all of his influence to swing the election of 1800 away from Burr and to Jefferson (back then, runner-up became VP). He was worried about Burr’s constitutional interpretation, specifically about banking. Boring, eh? But enough to shoot a man over.

The pistols are on display at JPMorgan HQ on 345 Park Avenue, NYC, to this day. JPMorgan could not have existed without Hamilton’s death.

Tidbit: Hamilton’s death sparked the anti-dueling movement., including bans on dueling instruments like swords and dueling pistols. It only took 24 years for everyone to forget, eh?

What I fail to see here is the common sense issue.
The gun haters need to hate cars as they kill more people than guns, then they need to hate alcohol as more people did from drinking related issues than guns, while you are at throw in the cigs, they kill everybody else.

Note : Criminals intent on creating an crime scene are still going to get the gun they need, no laws will stop them.

To presume that some type of gun control is needed is not only ignorant but it is belittling to mans common sense.

I would suggest outlawing the above mentioned items first since they are a priority to save lives.

After you are done with them then try to come and our guns.
Keep in mind, you will walk over every right we have in this process.
While you are taking guns from the public be sure to take them from the police also or we could wined up with a police state…. Like Russia, Cuba or North Korea…. Perhaps that is what you Obama Hussein types want.
How fitting to for you to have a president with a Muslim name, trying to take the guns of the greatest superpower in the world.
While his Muslim namesakes pillage, murder and give full automatic weapons to 10 year olds, seems a little hypocritical to me.